The conflict pitting ethnic Rakhine Buddhists against Rohingya Muslims has left at least a dozen civilians dead and hundreds of homes destroyed since disturbances began in coastal Rakhine state on Friday....

The government regards the Rohingyas as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and has rendered them stateless by denying them citizenship. Although some are recent settlers, many have lived in Burma for generations and rights groups say they suffer severe discrimination.

Predominately Buddhist countries would be wise to limit Muslim immigration as it is just asking for trouble in the future. I don't support violence, but knowing where to draw a potentially unpopular line is necessary given the clash of cultures that will inevitably arise.

Buddhists and Muslims don't mix well. Idealists might try to argue otherwise, but history almost always tells a different story.

The government regards the Rohingyas as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and has rendered them stateless by denying them citizenship. Although some are recent settlers, many have lived in Burma for generations and rights groups say they suffer severe discrimination.

Predominately Buddhist countries would be wise to limit Muslim immigration as it is just asking for trouble in the future. I don't support violence, but knowing where to draw a potentially unpopular line is necessary given the clash of cultures that will inevitably arise.

Buddhists and Muslims don't mix well. Idealists might try to argue otherwise, but history almost always tells a different story.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumalthe modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell

The government regards the Rohingyas as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and has rendered them stateless by denying them citizenship. Although some are recent settlers, many have lived in Burma for generations and rights groups say they suffer severe discrimination.

Predominately Buddhist countries would be wise to limit Muslim immigration as it is just asking for trouble in the future. I don't support violence, but knowing where to draw a potentially unpopular line is necessary given the clash of cultures that will inevitably arise.

Buddhists and Muslims don't mix well. Idealists might try to argue otherwise, but history almost always tells a different story.

Why do you think that is?

IN THIS BOOK IT IS SPOKEN OF THE SEPHIROTH & THE PATHS, OF SPIRITS & CONJURATIONS, OF GODS, SPHERES, PLANES & MANY OTHER THINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST. IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT. BY DOING CERTAIN THINGS CERTAIN RESULTS FOLLOW; STUDENTS ARE MOST EARNESTLY WARNED AGAINST ATTRIBUTING OBJECTIVE REALITY OR PHILOSOPHICAL VALIDITY TO ANY OF THEM.

The government regards the Rohingyas as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and has rendered them stateless by denying them citizenship. Although some are recent settlers, many have lived in Burma for generations and rights groups say they suffer severe discrimination.

Predominately Buddhist countries would be wise to limit Muslim immigration as it is just asking for trouble in the future. I don't support violence, but knowing where to draw a potentially unpopular line is necessary given the clash of cultures that will inevitably arise.

Buddhists and Muslims don't mix well. Idealists might try to argue otherwise, but history almost always tells a different story.

The government regards the Rohingyas as illegal migrants from Bangladesh and has rendered them stateless by denying them citizenship. Although some are recent settlers, many have lived in Burma for generations and rights groups say they suffer severe discrimination.

Predominately Buddhist countries would be wise to limit Muslim immigration as it is just asking for trouble in the future. I don't support violence, but knowing where to draw a potentially unpopular line is necessary given the clash of cultures that will inevitably arise.

Buddhists and Muslims don't mix well. Idealists might try to argue otherwise, but history almost always tells a different story.

Agreed. Especially when one side is more given to violence, and the only plausible responses are retaliation or surrender.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

Sadly once a Muslim community becomes ascendant they start taking the Koran rather literally. That means all Buddhists and Hindus must unequivocally be put to death. Unlike Christians and Jews who receive three chances to convert to the true faith.

The recent 1971 Hindu genocide in Bangladesh is estimated at about 3 million dead. So the Buddhist country with murderously genocidal Muslim neighbors has anti-immigration policies. Call the UN. It's so unfair. Where was the UN in 1971?

Reading the Koran I found seven separate reasons to be put myself to death IIRC.

Muslims tend to think of Buddhists as idol worshippers, which is forbidden in Islam.

If they are a small minority, their opinions matter little, but if they gain political and social power with numbers, then they can and will go on the offensive against Buddhism, which they are obligated to as per religious conventions.

In past centuries in Asia it seems Buddhism was the representative group of "idol worshippers". In Persian the word for idol is "bot" which is probably derived from a regional pronunciation of "Buddha":

These lingering memories of Buddhist structures and idols—the word bot is probably derived from buddha­—were paralleled in Persian poetry by an array of clichés celebrating idealized beauty. For example, the bot-e māhrūy (the moon-faced idol) is described as having a face round as the full moon, eyes shaped like almonds below arched brows, and a tiny carnelian mouth; the body is said to be “silvery” (sīm-tan). Asadī Ṭūsī quotes in his dictionary the following line by Abu’l-Maṯal Boḵārī to illustrate the meaning of farḵār or bot-ḵāna “temple of an idol” (Loḡat-e Fors, ed. Horn, p. 122); “My idol (bot) came alive; its monk became inanimate/Here I am a monk to it with my house as its vihāra.” The metaphor presents the beloved one as a beautiful idol into which life has been breathed, while the lover is rendered inanimate as he is overcome with emotion. In an elaborate variation on this theme Manūčehrī celebrates a garden that has become like a monastery (bot-ḵāna-ye farḵār), where the roses are like idols and the birds like monks (šaman), whose soles the roses/idols would seem to be kissing (Biberstein Kazi­mirski, p. 8; Manūčehrī, p. 1). At a fairly early date, however, the word bot came to mean not only an image of the Buddha but also more generally “idol” and to be associated with the theme of the “beautiful Turk” (see bot).

So what you are saying is that immigration qualification should be based on religious belief? Anyway, the only way to ensure the survival of Buddhism is for Buddhists to act like Buddhists. Lynching is hardly Buddhist and will just lead to more reprisals and "bad press". Rape is also condemend under Muslim law.

Only a rape of muslim by muslim, if however the rape is done against kafir, then it is ok. In islam there is a double morality. What is forbidden in general (that is amongst muslims) is not forbidden against kafir (the infidels), for example acts such as beating, killing, stealing from them, lying to them, etc. especially if that is done in the name of Allah and in for the cause of jihad.

Only a rape of muslim by muslim, if however the rape is done against kafir, then it is ok. In islam there is a double morality. What is forbidden in general (that is amongst muslims) is not forbidden against kafir (the infidels), for example acts such as beating, killing, stealing from them, lying to them, etc. especially if that is done in the name of Allah and in for the cause of jihad.

Your statement is unfounded nonsense.

Islâm views human life as a sacred gift from God. The Qur’ân repeatedly stresses the sanctity of life (hurmat al hayat). The life of every single individual regardless of gender, age, nationality or religion is worthy of respect. In verses referring to the sanctity of life, the term used is ‘nafs’ (soul, life); and there is no distinction made in that soul being young or old, male or female, Muslim or non-muslim...

Rape as hiraba is a violent crime that uses sexual intercourse as a weapon. The focus in a hiraba prosecution is the accused rapist and his intent and physical actions, and not second-guessing the consent of the rape victim. Hiraba does not require four witnesses to prove the offense, circumstantial evidence, medical data and expert testimony form the evidence used to prosecute such crimes.

Islamic legal responses to rape are not limited to a criminal prosecution for hiraba. Islamic jurisprudence also provides an avenue for civil redress for a rape survivor in its law of "jirah" (wounds). Islamic law designates ownership rights to each part of one’s body, and a right to corresponding compensation for any harm done unlawfully to any of those parts. Islamic law calls this the ‘law of jirah’ (wounds). Harm to a sexual organ, therefore, entitles the person harmed to appropriate financial compensation under classical Islamic jirah jurisprudence. Each school of Islamic law has held that where a woman is harmed through sexual intercourse (some include marital intercourse), she is entitled to financial compensation for the harm. Further, where this intercourse was without the consent of the woman, the perpetrator must pay the woman both the basic compensation for the harm, as well as an additional amount based on the ‘diyya’ (financial compensation for murder, akin to a wrongful death payment).

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Fitna is when someone or something tries or temtps to turn a muslim away from his faith.

Againg, Sura 2, verse 217:

They ask you about the sacred month - about fighting therein. Say, "Fighting therein is great [sin], but averting [people] from the way of Allah and disbelief in Him and [preventing access to] al-Masjid al-Haram and the expulsion of its people therefrom are greater [evil] in the sight of Allah . And fitnah is greater than killing." And they will continue to fight you until they turn you back from your religion if they are able. And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally.

There goes the sacredness of life in islam. Under dhimmah anything is allowed, since muslims are the ones who decide what measures can be taken against the kafir. Should kafir be seen as useful and in general no threat to the faith of muslim, they can practice their religion, provided that they pay jizya, of course.

The problem with islam is that it is not a religion, but an ideology. Beacause in general, religion has no say in the things regarding finances, judicial system etc. Relgion has to do with spiritual sphere, but islam governs and rules all spheres of life. It is not a tolerant system on a whole. Only tolerant can be tolerated, the intolerant cannot.

So I can imagine christians, hindus, buddhists, jews, sikhs, etc. living in peace. But as long as the islam goes on about the "house of islam" and the "house of war", it simply cannot be tolerated. Since jihad is the central idea in islam and is agreed as such by all major schools of islamic theology, there is no way islam can coexist peacefully with others.

Both quoted passages talk about fighting and killing when attacked. So they are hardly relevant. I said that revenge (lynching) is not "Buddhist" not that it's not "Muslim". The issue here is (was?) if rape is condemened by Islamic law. It is. Full stop.

As for the rest of the unifnormed nonsense you spout about Islam, well... the jihad, in many Muslim traditions, is the war against the Self that tries to distance itself from Allah (the "All"). It's about self-centred pettiness versus selfless surrender to the universal.

While I don't want to downplay the dangers of radicalized violent political Islam, I think it's important to note that these types of incidents unfortunately are not that rare in this region and most are not muslims versus buddhists. So I think it's a mistake to assume this tragedy is necessarily an outcome of Koran prescribed anti-Buddhist violence.Religion will almost always play some part when people with different religions clash, but that doesn't mean it's the main cause. Best wishesLars

gregkavarnos wrote:As for the rest of the unifnormed nonsense you spout about Islam,

Sura 9 - verses 3 and 4, where it speaks about dhimma:

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

As for Jihad, Sura 8, verse 12:

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

I am not saying that all muslims follow the above, there alevits and sufis, but these are not considered to be real muslims by the most of sunis and shia, who quite frankly make up the wast majority of muslims.

Buddhists in Burma did not act a buddhist way and there is not apology for that. What I wanted to say is that Huseng is quite right in pointing out that muslim communities are a source of trouble and there is a specific reason for that, the reason is Islam. If you take Mohammed as an ideal role model for a muslim man, then what have you got? A pedophile and a murderer. Not a holy man at all. So how can following such an example lead to peaceful behavior?

gregkavarnos wrote:So what you are saying is that immigration qualification should be based on religious belief? Anyway, the only way to ensure the survival of Buddhism is for Buddhists to act like Buddhists. Lynching is hardly Buddhist and will just lead to more reprisals and "bad press". Rape is also condemend under Muslim law.

And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

I think you will find that the painful punishement is to go to hell as punishemnt for being a disbeliever.

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

The passage you quoted talks about a specific decisive battle at Badr where Muhammed led his forces against his main enemies (which had an army three times larger than the opne he led) the Meccans and decisively defeated them. Needless to say, defeating such a large force and taking one of the richest cities on the arab peninsula was seen to have occured due to divine intervention. But, Muhammed was actually born in Mecca but had to escape religious persecution in his mome town by runnig away with his followers to Medina. So it was all about political power and revenge. Isn't it great when religion and politics coincide?

Joshua Chapter 617. And the city shall be devoted, even it and all that is therein, to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.18. And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the devoted thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed by taking of the devoted thing, so should ye make the camp of Israel accursed, and trouble it.19. But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are holy unto the LORD; they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.'20. So the people shouted, and [the priests] blew with the horns. And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the horn, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.21. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.22. And Joshua said unto the two men that had spied out the land: 'Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye swore unto her.'23. And the young men the spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had, all her kindred also they brought out; and they set them without the camp of Israel.24. And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein; only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

I think that on the basis of statements like this and the actions of the Israeli state and fundamentalist Jews in the occupied territories that Jews should not be allowed to migrate to countries that don't have a Jewish majority population. I mean just look at their history!

Buddhists in Burma did not act a buddhist way and there is not apology for that. What I wanted to say is that Huseng is quite right in pointing out that muslim communities are a source of trouble and there is a specific reason for that, the reason is Islam. If you take Mohammed as an ideal role model for a muslim man, then what have you got? A pedophile and a murderer. Not a holy man at all. So how can following such an example lead to peaceful behavior?

So every time a Buddhist kills it's not Buddhism to blame it's the individual Buddhist but if a Muslim kills it's not the individual Muslim to blame but Islam (and Muslims in general)? Crappy logic!

gregkavarnos wrote:So what you are saying is that immigration qualification should be based on religious belief? Anyway, the only way to ensure the survival of Buddhism is for Buddhists to act like Buddhists. Lynching is hardly Buddhist and will just lead to more reprisals and "bad press". Rape is also condemend under Muslim law.

Ladakh is a case of this. A few decades ago it was Buddhist majority. Now in Leh half of the population is Muslim. In a few generations it will be majority Muslim.

It is not politically correct, but countries which would accept immigration need to be mindful of potential cultural clashes. Some states in Europe made the mistake of not taking into consideration cultural differences and the unfortunate results are being seen.

Political correctness and enforced multiculturalism are recipes for disaster.

Ladakh is a case of this. A few decades ago it was Buddhist majority. Now in Leh half of the population is Muslim. In a few generations it will be majority Muslim.

So what? If Buddhism is not speaking to the hearts of people it deserves to be "overrun".

It is not politically correct, but countries which would accept immigration need to be mindful of potential cultural clashes. Some states in Europe made the mistake of not taking into consideration cultural differences and the unfortunate results are being seen.

Political correctness and enforced multiculturalism are recipes for disaster.

So you are saying that the way to overcome cultural clashes is to have states that are also cultural monoliths? Germany for Germans? Auslanders raus?

NPD.jpg (12.51 KiB) Viewed 2578 times

You seem to forget though, that European nations tend to have Abrahamic religious bases, so the cultural clash you are talking about has nothing to do with the immigrants religion.PS

Muslims tend to think of Buddhists as idol worshippers, which is forbidden in Islam.